Category Archives: Educational leadership

Last year we set up and ran as series of interviews with pupils in Y6 from April through to a similar time in Y7. The purpose of the interviews was to see what happened to their attitudes and approaches at the point of transition. We have engaged in a range of transition projects in the past but they have all tended to be based around learning experiences and we felt it important to look at the children’s attitudes and how they might change over that most important of years so that we might be better informed to deal with transition from primary to secondary education.

The six pupils involved in the project were carefully chosen to ensure that they would be receptive to the initiative, that they would be happy to share with us their thoughts and could be relied upon to provide us with an honest account every step of the way. We worked closely with our high school colleagues but they did not attend the interviews until the last couple, as they did not want to inhibit the children’s responses. The semi-structured interviews revolved around the same questions and left space for the children to elaborate and expand on given themes (What makes a great teacher? What makes a great learner? What are the features of the best lessons?) The children’s responses remained consistent in key areas. They all believed good subject knowledge, good classroom management, interesting lessons and getting to know students individually so they can help them learn were the key components. The latter response was interesting because this was not mentioned at primary school but something they talked about regularly at high school. This was informed by the fact they had experienced a range of teachers and some would regularly have supply staff covering regular staff absence. All very different to the primary model they had been used to. They all believed that where staff really made the effort to get to know them, they benefitted and the learning was more successful.

None of the interviews gave us any great revelations and we were not surprised by their answers however the interviews informed staff meetings at the high school as they recognised the value of hearing the thoughts of new students who were meeting their primary school head and deputy each half term to talk about the teaching and learning. When it came to classroom management they very quickly recognised the teachers who made idle threats. They cited many examples of teachers threatening those displaying unacceptable behaviour with detentions and other such sanctions but not following them through. They said that all students grasped these matters very quickly and those prone to ‘playing up’ would know they could do so without any further recourse meaning those who wanted to learn were potentially distracted. The children also stated that the higher the position of the member of staff, the more respect they had in the classroom. It was apparent that supply and cover staff were viewed on the whole as those who dealt with the brunt of poor behaviour and were the least effective at dealing with it. Lessons were covered by staff who weren’t specialists in that subject so the quality of teaching and learning could be a cause of behavioural problems. The number of teachers the children had during a week was a big factor in their changing attitude to teaching and learning and their comments about staff getting to know them were obviously informed by this impasse. How do all their teachers get to know them?

They stayed firm to their views that the best learners were resilient, didn’t give up, could avoid distractions and sought to challenge themselves. They spoke about the importance of a growth mindset and it was good to hear that the same messages were being given at primary and secondary about the importance of failure as part of the learning process. They told us about children who had left primary school with them who now misbehaved and would tell us we ‘wouldn’t believe’ how they had changed. We pondered on this and privately thought about the level of emotional support that some of these children had needed at primary and whether the high school was able to replicate this model given the different approaches at secondary and the difficulty in engaging with parents once they leave primary. The influence of older students also seemed to have a bearing on behaviour and perceptions of the school environment. Children who were big fish in a small pond suddenly became small fish in a bigger pond, this was clearly something they all wrestled with and overall seemed to have grasped positively, knowing where and who to avoid as if by osmosis.

The children’s views on the best lessons didn’t waver over the duration of the project and largely the key factors for them were found in exciting lessons that challenged their thinking and help them learn. They talked about the importance of engagement and questioning, being comfortable enough to make mistakes and to know that they weren’t going to be in trouble for make them. The best lessons were, again, where they knew the teachers and the teachers knew them.

It would have been interesting to keep up with the interviews as the group progressed through high school. They were still excited to see their primary school staff but I guess that would have cooled off over time! By the end of the project high school staff sat in with us and we had a good enough relationship for the children to continue to inform us and in doing so enable to us look again at transition. How do we build and develop the kind of relationships that are necessary following transition to high school? How do we limit the number of staff and so enable those who do teach the children to really get to know them? Is it possible to do this when each subject requires specialist teachers?

I hope the high school have kept the group together as a teaching and learning forum and continue to meet with them. When we want to know about teaching and learning who better to ask than those in the class.

I recently blogged about our changing approach to Lesson Study. Having operated in a number of different ways, we have moved to a school to school model that we hope will be sustainable in the face of cuts to school budgets. Our existing model requires a lot of release time for staff, and although every cycle of lesson study has proved to be extremely valuable, such as model is operationally challenging as we move forward. The school to school model requires less release time and has other benefits that we are beginning to see from our early forays into this CPD research field.

As blogged previously, we have tried out different approaches and engaged in some school to school research but are now planning more strategically to build on our previous work. We recently completed a first round of school to school lesson study with three Y4 classes. One class acted as host and the research lessons took place in this class over a two week period. The three teachers involved followed the same approach as we had successfully employed in our own setting with joint planning time and post lesson pupil interviews and review built in to the process. As is often the case with such things, staff gave their own time over and above the release each school allocated, simply because the research findings and conversations enthused them.

The research in this round focussed on the language used in maths. The findings suggested that children in the class were put off tougher problems if they didn’t understand the words being used in the problems. Some children didn’t have a clear understanding of the word ‘explain’ and therefore avoided any problems using this word, even though they could solve the actual calculations. In response to this the teachers decided to create a bank of words often used in maths, and find simple explanations and meanings to display in classes next to them. From the post lesson pupil interviews it was felt this would help the children access the questions. The research shows that we may assume children’s understanding of some of the words we regularly use in maths and that it is worth spending time unpicking meanings carefully with children in order to give them the best chance of answering the word problems.

The staff involved in this latest round of research have now planned a presentation to deliver in staff meetings in the schools after the Easter break. This opportunity to share their findings in more than one school is also a great CPD opportunity and I am sure, it will open up further rich dialogue around this area. Following this successful trial, we plan to extend the model to other year groups during the summer term.

On Friday, we held the official opening of our Confucius Classroom. This special celebration recognised the school’s work over the last five years and enabled us to look confidently towards the future. We are keen to develop the children’s understanding as global citizens and look for every opportunity to do so. Our mandarin teachers are not only teaching the children to speak Chinese but are also providing lessons in calligraphy, paper cutting and a range of other activities that the children fully enjoy. We are fortunate to be able to provide Wu Shu and Tai Chi classes so the provision extends across the curriculum. Beyond the visible though, our partnerships have also seen changes in classroom practice prompted by some of the lessons we’ve learnt from our peers in China.

The mandarin lessons in school give the children the chance to learn a new language from a native speaker. From the earliest years the children are learning songs, rhymes, games and stories and as they move through the school they build on these early activities developing their vocabulary and eventually moving onto some basic characters and writing. We recently hosted a group of Y6 Chinese pupils who were visiting the UK. It gave our children the chance to converse with their peers in mandarin building on the penpal letters they had sent in preparation for the visit.

The school also provides outreach for a number of schools in the area and we are keen to expand this support. Moving forward we intend to provide opportunities for the children to work together with peers in local schools, to share their learning and perform together. In this shrinking world we believe it is important to provide the children with real global experiences that not only excite them as learners today, but also give them an understanding and respect as tomorrow’s global citizens.

We embraced lesson study wholeheartedly a couple of years ago. The developmental approach to teaching and learning sits more comfortably than the judgemental. It encourages research and innovation and enables staff to improve their practice in a supportive and collaborative environment.

The problem with the Lesson Study model we adopted is that to run it successfully there’s a lot of release time required. We have worked in triads thus needing three teachers out of class to plan and review with two out of class for each research lesson (we work with a cycle of three research lessons). To sustain this model of LS is a challenge and we have therefore thought carefully about how we can continue to reap the benefits but without the financial costs and potential disruption to timetables.

Earlier this year we trialled a school to school Lesson Study with a partner school in Birmingham. Two Y6 staff worked together on a small research project and this gave us the incentive to take the idea further. We have decided this time around to work with two partner schools closer to home. This means each of us releasing just one teacher for each round of Lesson Study rather than three. In January we will begin a Y4 maths Lesson Study which we are all very excited about. It will build on the successful approach we have employed in school but with the added benefit of insights and ideas from beyond our own community. It further develops our school to school work and gives staff a great opportunity to learn and research with other practitioners. We still aim to continue with the distance LS using technology as much as possible to enable us to successfully work beyond local confines. Staff will still present their findings to their peers and the opportunity to deliver staff PD meetings with colleagues in other schools provides yet another opportunity to share research and learn from each other.

In this era of austerity with educational funding decreasing, it is important to continue to move forward as a profession and school to school Lesson Study provides a great opportunity for us to work together, share research and learn from each other.

Tomorrow it’s our annual Kaizen Inset Day. Each year we agree one common training day for all our staff. We pool our resources to bring in the best people to lead a day in one of our schools. This work can then be further developed in our own settings with collaborative approaches informed by a shared message.

Kaizen means small steps to continuous improvement. The name of this Japanese business model suits our aims perfectly. We set up this informal network as a group of new (ish) head teachers around ten years ago. Our initial aim was to support each other in our burgeoning leadership roles. We shared a common set of values and beliefs and we were all keen to work closely, to develop a school to school support model that would help our schools grow, and help us grow as school leaders.

Initially our network was a leadership support mechanism but it quickly grew to a body which included pupil teaching and learning groups, digital leaders, debating societies and subject leader clusters. Recently children from each school visited Houses of Parliament. This followed a joint pupil teaching and learning day looking at school values. Before half term the teaching and learning groups shared presentations based on findings amongst pupils in their own schools on ‘what makes the ideal teacher, the ideal learner?’ Debating societies at the same pupil conference debated whether the government should pay for homes for the homeless (this topic was chosen by the pupils from a number of options). The work the pupils are engaged in is shared back in their own schools via assemblies and school council meetings. A focus on speaking and listening is developing the confidence and understanding of those involved, and the more we can involve, the better!

Staff work together on key aspects of their roles and this is something we will be developing further this year with our focus on collaborative improvement and lesson study. Subject leaders find it useful to moderate beyond their school and local clusters (Kaizen involves schools from across the region and internationally) and in this new age without levels, such sessions are more important than ever. Last year our Kaizen Inset Day was led by Professor Barry Hymer, we looked carefully at the research into Growth Mindset and how such work could impact on our schools’ approaches. This year the day is being led by Dr Pete Dudley, to build on our approaches to Lesson Study. Plans are already afoot for inter school research using the Lesson Study model. The afternoon will be given over to a Teaching and Learning Exchange, where staff from Kaizen partner schools share a range of pedagogical approaches that they are having successes with in the classroom. These practitioner led workshops provide a ‘warts and all’ view that is refreshingly honest and helpful to colleagues in developing their own practices.

The Kaizen network grew organically. There was no top down initiative, no external funding and no outside agenda. The strength of the partnership is the shared belief that by working together, supporting each other and collaborating, we can improve the teaching and learning in our schools and provide a better all round education for our children.

Following our first year of lesson study, we have changed the format in school for this academic year. As a staff we spent time at the end of the summer term discussing the impact of LS to date and deciding on the best way forward. We were all convinced that this was the right way to develop teaching and learning but felt it worth tweaking our approach to get more out of it.

As a three from entry primary we are well suited for the model we’ve developed. Each term a different class in each year group becomes the research class. The ‘host’ teacher works with their two year group colleagues to plan the lesson study and the three teachers (along with any support staff involved) write up their research. This research is then shared by the host teacher at a lesson study staff meeting the following term. Over the year each class in each year group will be the research class once, all teachers will take on the role of researcher/research teacher, and each will present research findings to staff. All staff will have taken part in at least three lesson studies. As in the past, we are restricted to two ‘formal’ research lessons during the cycle, due to timetabling and class cover required however, the impact of the research goes beyond the formal process and is instrumental in driving developments in teaching and learning. .

The cycle below outlines our current approach to lesson study

Planning Meeting 1
Agree and sign Lesson Study protocol
Agree on lesson to be taught, who is to teach it and area of focus from AfL work
Plan lesson in detail together as a research team with area of AfL focus in mind, considering any resources necessary and any pre lesson preparation.
Research lesson teacher to identify three pupils, broadly representative of the differing learning groups in the class. Teacher to identify how they think the pupils will respond at different points in the lesson, researchers complete proforma (planning, observation and discussion sheet)Research Lesson 1
Camera set up prior to lesson to enable inconspicuous filming for class teacher’s reference. Researchers complete proforma whilst observing identified pupils (emphasis is on the learner response)
Researchers also record thoughts regarding AfL focus for feedback in post lesson discussion.Post Lesson Pupil Interviews
Each researcher interviews identified pupil following the lesson using profroma (suggested questions for post lesson interview) encouraging pupils to answer fully and share any thoughts on the lesson and the learningPost Lesson Discussion
Following the first research lesson (RL1) and pupil interviews, research team come back together. Session follows format below:
a) Teacher shares thoughts on the lesson/learning
b) Researchers take turn to share findings (notes) on pupil’s response to learning (how teacher thought they would respond/how they were observed to respond)
c) Researchers take turns to share post lesson pupil interview findings
d) Film footage shared (if necessary) to support findings. Footage then provided for teacher to view later
e) AfL focus discussed in general terms and researchers share any notes made during research lesson.
f) Next lesson discussed in light of findings from RL1, changes/amendments made as appropriate, children for observation agreed.Research Lesson 2
Cycle begins again

Research is then written up by year group team and saved on the school server. The host teacher then uses the research notes to inform presentation to staff.

We have been using lesson study for a while now and although it isn’t new, it is still fairly new to us. I have written previously about the approach we have adopted in school and it is a constantly evolving model. We have embraced this practitioner based classroom research with enthusiasm and commitment. We are a school of advocates! We have developed a model of lesson study based on the work of Dr Pete Dudley (@DrDudley13) and it has transformed our approach to CPD.

Rather than waiting for the next course/training/magic bullet to change our practice, we have developed an ongoing, devlopmental model that everyone buys into.

Many courses have very little impact beyond the delivery. Changes and development in classroom practice are rare and impact on pupil learning scant at best. Rather than invest time and money into such tried and tested approaches we adopted lesson study. We have found that educational research is at it most potent in its native environment and classroom practitioners its most powerful exponents.

Lesson observations are a passive experience – teachers choosing to teach a safe lesson to avoid unwanted judgements does not move practice forward. The scenario often played out goes something like this – teacher has observation looming, choses to teach something (previously taught) that shows them in a good light, observation sheet is completed by observer, evaluation is shared with teacher, teacher files away observation and process closes. Until the next round of observations. This evaluative, judgemental model does little to improve teaching and learning when compared with lesson study.

Because lesson study is research based it encourages staff to take risks, try new strategies and reflect with colleagues on the impact on pupil learning. Because lessons are co- constructed and focus on learner response, teachers do not feel threatened. Lesson observations can feel more like a personal judgement of the teacher than a supportive developmental process. Lesson study encourages a collaborative approach to classroom practice and a level of (often collective) reflection seldom seen with the traditional lesson observation model. It promotes a rich professional dialogue around teaching and learning and through carefully planned research lifts the lid on many of the tacit practices lived out in the classroom on a daily basis. The evidence based approach and powerful pupil voice (learner response and post research lesson interviews) so important to lesson study make it a developmental model of classroom cpd that is proving instrumental in moving practice forward.

As the end of the spring term approaches we have set aside time as a school to reflect on the first cycle of lesson study. The research within school can be broadly divided into four key areas: learning partners, resources, use of praise/feedback and questioning. We have chosen to present the findings as a booklet for staff to take away and consider.

We have kept the findings deliberately brief and hope that further dialogue will be generated after the Easter holidays. The four areas are outlined below in terms of findings, questions arising from the findings, actions and resources.

1. Learning partners

Findings– very much established as part of the school culture. Clearly embedded and used throughout the school at different stages of development. Not all children clear about the role of a learning partner. When best used the length of time was appropriate for the outcome and made clear to children e.g. 20 seconds to generate answer, 1 minute for discussion etc… Some children were very passive when working with a learning partner, while others dominated. Roles were not always equally shared. Learning partners were seen to give lower ability children more confidence. “When you have ideas and your friend has ideas you can mix them up and get a better idea.” Y5 pupil. Learning partners clarify learning and understanding for children. “I didn’t know what they meant (AFs) until my partner told me.” Y5 pupil.

Questions arising – how are learning partners chosen? How often are they changed?

Actions – clear guidance and clear success for learning partners needed. Agreed protocols around successful learners and how to be an effective learning partner to be shared and displayed in classes. Reward systems to include recognition of good learning partners.

Findings – resources available but not always used to maximise learning. Resources generally out but children not always clear how to use them and what to use them for e.g. number squares, multi link. Evidence of gap between stages of a child’s learning and resources given to support them causing confusion e.g. children still trying to understand cardinal numbers had been given number squares. Evidence of pre learning being an effective resource to support lower ability children in accessing learning during lesson. This was most effective where the strategy to be employed in the lesson was made clear and addressed gaps in the children’s learning. AfL cups were used to good effect in one class. Working walls, where used, were seen to have a positive impact and children were able to access this to support learning.

Questions arising – are tangible resources taken away from the children too soon? Is training needed for teaching and support staff in effective use of appropriate resources and developmental stages of resources e.g. subitising

Actions – staff training on use of key resources

Resources – spelling booklet to support working memory. AfL cups for each class

3. Use of praise/feedback

Findings – positive climate in all classes involved in research to date. All children displayed positive attitudes towards learning. Very little use of empty praise (orally). Children understood why they were being praised due to teacher/adult’s clear explanation of the reason. Clarification of praise was a strong feature of the research. Quality learning and discussion with peers sometimes limited by constraints of the lesson which could hinder learning.

Questions – do all adults have a clear understanding of the purpose of praise and the impact this can have? How do we incorporate response time into children’s lessons and learning? How does this impact on lesson planning and timetabling?

Actions – develop further the language of praise (minimise ‘well done’, ‘good work’ comments and replace with comments related to effort and specifics). Further training based on growth mindset. Amend marking and feedback policy.

Resources – Barry Hymer materials from Inset on server. Feedback and marking policy (to be amended following work with Bill Thompson and Barry Hymer)

4. Questioning

Findings – questioning was seen to be most effective;

When children were given clear wait/thinking time either on their own or with a learning partner.

When children were given a leading role during discussions (e.g. basketball not ping pong)

When differentiated questioning was targeted towards individuals. (Differentiation to aid understanding through use of appropriate language and blank level questioning)

Where strategies were actively employed to promote whole class engagement rather than limiting questions to a number of enthusiastic respondents (e.g. lolly sticks, name generator rather than hands up).

Where pre prepared questions gave children time to think before responding (e.g. asking questions before a video clip)

A good range of open and closed questions were evidenced to reinforce, clarify, challenge misconceptions and to lead discussions.

Questions – is there any purpose to a ‘hands up’ approach? Do we need a whole school approach to effective use of questioning, e.g. lolly sticks, wait time? Are all staff clear about children’s understanding of language?

Actions – school to further explore a ‘no hands up’ approach to encourage full participation and sustained engagement. Training for support staff.

As stated previously, the above information will hopefully provoke further discussion as we move forward with lesson study. Next term we will follow up the actions and fine tune our approach to LS in light of our findings. It would be great to hear from anyone who is using LS or wrestling with the development of these key areas.

We have just completed our first cycle of Lesson Study and the response has been extremely positive. A more explicit focus on pupil learning and a deeper understanding of how they learn has been a prominant feature of this first round of research. The shift from teacher at the centre of an observation to learner at the centre of the research is significant. Where traditional observations tend to warrant a quick post lesson chat before the handing over of a judgemental, evaluative A4 sheet, Lesson Study has encouraged us to look in fine detail at the process, to develop practice and collectively reflect on findings. The high level of professional dialogue, both in the joint planning stage and during the post lesson discussions has reflected the interest and enthusiasm of those involved. I am sure not all were completely sold on the idea of four adults and a video camera invading their classroom, followed by a thorough dissection of what had occurred, but once through the process all recognised the power of such an approach and believe it is worth developing across the school.

As with any new initiative in school, the Lesson Study model still needs work for it to be successfully embedded. There are potential issues around cover and creating the time and space needed to run Lesson Study properly. We are probably still too kind to each other when it comes to professional discussion and I am sure the gloves will come off given time. We placed great importance on the protocol and everyone signed up to this but we will revisit it in the next round and ensure everyone really does feel safe to disagree, to challenge assumptions and beliefs and to share ideas and approaches, however outlandish they may sound. The level of dialogue generated following each research lesson has been staggering and I believe that will only grow over time. The protocol is important in clarifying to all involved that there is no hierarchy rather equal research partners co creating lessons and reflecting on the findings. This takes away the notion of one teacher and their work being the focus and encourages a sense of collaboration and joint professional development.

In the next cycle we are keen to involve support staff more as they have such a crucial role to play when it comes to learner response. We have not yet settled on the right way to collate and share the research findings. For this first round it will be disseminated through staff meetings and electronically via the school server but in the future this could take the form of teacher demonstrations, presentations, handouts, booklets or videos. As our overarching focus for this first round has been questioning, we have begun to run a series of staff meetings to share the research and open up ways to move practice forward as a result. The use of praise, learning partners and resourcing also featured significantly in this cycle and sharing the findings of these areas is planned over the next term. For us to develop teaching and learning it is important that we move away from simply evaluating lessons and their effectiveness to a system that promotes professional development by allowing staff to experiment with new ideas and strategies in a safe and supportive environment. I believe Lesson Study gives us that opportunity.

One of the key areas of AfL development in school is questioning. We have been looking at effective use of questioning for some time and staff have embraced the work of Dylan William, Shirley Clarke and, more recently Bill Thompson, who has been in school working with our AfL group. The introduction of Lesson Study this term has enabled us to really progress this work.

We made questioning the overarching area of Lesson Study. In addition to the focus on three pupils representative of different learner groups we decided to look closely at questioning. This enabled us to observe Bill’s recent input at close quarters and also gave us an area that would allow for repeated research regardless of subject or theme. With each Lesson Study we have been able to learn from the questioning observed in the previous one. We began by looking carefully at wait time. Many teachers were surprised by how little time they left after asking a question. Following Lesson Study, staff are consciously making an effort to pause for longer, to give children more time to consider their response rather than rushing for an answer. We have also looked carefully at the ping pong v basketball argument, questions and answers that bounce back and forth between pupil and teacher as opposed to being passed around the room by the children to their peers for a range of responses. As with the ‘no hands up’ sessions this approach ensures all learners are alert and ready to respond rather than only the confident few. Through Lesson Study we have been able to observe learner response and have noticed that in some cases, if children put their hand up and are not chosen, they become more passive in their learning. We have also observed that many will not put their hand up and simply ‘opt out’ seeing this selective process as optional participation. Where ‘no hands up’ has worked best staff have been explicit about the session, explaining to the children that for this particular session they will be using lolly sticks or a name generator. Where this has not been clearly stated some children will continue to put their hand up as a kind of default for each question asked, regardless of whether they will be asked or not.

A recent research lesson gave us the opportunity to look at pre questioning. The teacher told certain children that after a film clip he would be asking them specific things about what they had seen. The questions were targeted to key children and differentiated accordingly. This gave the children a focus and time to consider their responses. The class were also told that those answering would be able to chose peers to help them, using the basketball technique thus engaging the rest of the class. Asking a question and giving the children time to discuss responses with talk partners before answering has also enabled pupils to give more thoughtful and considered responses and again, the opportunity to observe this process through Lesson Study has furthered our understanding of how such an approach to questioning can have a positive impact on learning. As with all aspects of Lesson Study, the conversation and professional dialogue generated around the use of open and closed questions, wait time, learner response, talk partners and more has been powerful and positive, leading to changes in approach that we hope with have a lasting impact. None of the techniques and approaches are new, some have been used to good effect in school already, but Lesson Study has enabled us to really get beneath the surface of questioning and support each other in developing and furthering classroom practice in a way that no other form of professional development has been able to.